"The article cites Israel’s justification for the blockade without challenge. This framing is blatantly misleading. Hamas agreed to release all remaining hostages as part of a phased ceasefire deal—a deal Israel violated in order to continue its military assault on Gaza."
Dear Mary Nersessian and Josef Federman,
I am writing regarding your recent article, “Leading aid group shuts down its soup kitchens across Gaza over Israel’s blockade” (CTV/AP, May 8, 2025). While the piece does important work highlighting Israel’s blockade as a starvation tactic—a potential war crime—it also reflects troubling asymmetries in language and sourcing that undermine journalistic neutrality.
The article’s focus on starvation as a military strategy is crucial, and its inclusion of rights groups’ condemnation of the blockade as a “starvation tactic” aligns with the Canadian Association of Journalists’ Ethics Guidelines, which call for reporting that holds power to account.
However, it simultaneously perpetuates Israel’s propaganda through distorted language, selective sourcing, and the erasure of Palestinian agency—violating the most basic tenets of journalistic ethics.
The following passage exemplifies AP’s recurring bias:
“Israel imposed the blockade on March 2, then shattered a two-month ceasefire by resuming military operations in the territory on March 18. It said both steps aim to pressure the militant Hamas group to release hostages the extremists still hold. Rights groups call the blockade a ‘starvation tactic’ that endangers the entire population and a potential war crime.”
Hamas is labeled “extremists,” while Israel’s actions are softened as “military operations”—a euphemism for a campaign that has killed over 52,000 Palestinians, including 14,000 children. In addition, by excluding Palestinian voices to rebut this narrative, Israel’s blockade, which the ICJ has linked to plausible genocide, is framed as a justified pressure tactic. The language disparity (“extremists” vs. “military operations”) fails to treat both sides equally violating the CAJ Guidelines regarding fairness.
The article cites Israel’s justification for the blockade without challenge. This framing is blatantly misleading. Hamas agreed to release all remaining hostages as part of a phased ceasefire deal—a deal Israel violated in order to continue its military assault on Gaza.
By omitting this critical context, your article falsely suggests Hamas is unilaterally withholding hostages, rather than acknowledging Israel’s deliberate sabotage of the deal. Parroting Israeli state propaganda as fact with no challenge distorts reality and violates the CAJ Guidelines regarding accuracy.
Lastly, instead of offering a Palestinian perspective, you quote World Central Kitchen (WCK)—a U.S.- and Tel Aviv-backed group—without clarifying WCK’s role in replacing UNRWA, the UN agency Israel has systematically dismantled. This creates a false impression that WCK represents Gaza’s needs, rather than being a handpicked actor in Israel’s controlled aid framework. Omitting WCK’s ties to governments undermining UNRWA and committing what many international organizations are calling a genocide violates CAJ Guidelines regarding transparency.
I urge CTV and AP to:
- Replace loaded terms like “extremists” with neutral language (e.g., “Hamas, Gaza’s elected political and military organization, which Israel designates a terrorist group”).
- Include Palestinian sources to contextualize Israel’s blockade and its impacts.
- Disclose WCK’s political ties to avoid misrepresenting it as a neutral humanitarian actor.
The stakes are too high for journalism to uncritically amplify state narratives. I hope you’ll address these issues now and in future coverage.
Sincerely,
Nikki Mutch
Volunteer
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East